PDA

View Full Version : Psalm 51 and Original Sin



JollyRoger1970
Nov 15th 2008, 07:16 PM
Does Psalm 51 teach the doctrine of Original Sin? David announces in verse 5:

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.”

Friend of I AM
Nov 15th 2008, 07:20 PM
Does Psalm 51 teach the doctrine of Original Sin? David announces in verse 5:

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.”

Yes it does. Romans 5 essentially expounds upon the whole original sin thing..

JollyRoger1970
Nov 15th 2008, 07:33 PM
Yes it does. Romans 5 essentially expounds upon the whole original sin thing..

What does Romans 5 say in essence concerning original sin?

Friend of I AM
Nov 15th 2008, 07:43 PM
What does Romans 5 say in essence concerning original sin?

That sin entered the world through Adam, and through Adam all men were deemed guilty of it. All men were considered sinners through Adam's offense, however, all men are considered righteous through Christ's sacrafice(by having faith in him).

JollyRoger1970
Nov 15th 2008, 07:46 PM
I thought Scripture plainly teaches that sin is not inherited. ”. . . the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father . . .” (Ezek. 18:20); every person is responsible for his own conduct (Rom. 14:12).

Friend of I AM
Nov 15th 2008, 07:47 PM
I thought Scripture plainly teaches that sin is not inherited. ”. . . the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father . . .” (Ezek. 18:20); every person is responsible for his own conduct (Rom. 14:12).

Is man responsable for his own salvation as well?

Yukerboy
Nov 15th 2008, 08:01 PM
All have sinned. The wages of sin is death. Death came to us through one man. Call it what you want, but the fact remains that all have sinned due to Adam sinning, or there would be no sin today (or until another had sinned I suppose).

As for a man being responsible for his salvation.... :rofl:no, really, stop it.

JollyRoger1970
Nov 15th 2008, 08:09 PM
Is man responsable for his own salvation as well?


Yes, man is responsible for his own salvation through his obedience to God and His commands. Without obedience to God one is not saved.

Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Walstib
Nov 15th 2008, 09:09 PM
I thought Scripture plainly teaches that sin is not inherited.

What if you think about not as inherited but simply present due to the condition of the creation. Harmonizes both passages for me.

Peace,

Joe

RogerW
Nov 15th 2008, 09:29 PM
I thought Scripture plainly teaches that sin is not inherited. ”. . . the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father . . .” (Ezek. 18:20); every person is responsible for his own conduct (Rom. 14:12).

Greetings JollyRoger,

We did not inherit Adam's sin, we inherited his sin nature. All mankind is born in the seed of Adam. As such we are in his loins, and therefore are born in bondage to Satan, sin and death. This was not so before the fall, but is the consquence of sin. Freedom from this bondage can be found only in Christ Jesus. For there is no other name given among men by which we can be saved. That is why Scripture teaches us we must be born again. Born again, not of flesh, but of the Spirit of God. When we are born again, the bondage is broken, we are no longer slaves of Satan, and we have no need to fear death, for Christ has paid the debt our sins deserve, so we now rejoice that we have eternal life in Christ.

Many Blessings,
RW

holyrokker
Nov 15th 2008, 11:13 PM
Does Psalm 51 teach the doctrine of Original Sin? David announces in verse 5:

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.”
Psalm 51:5 is clearly NOT teaching that all of mankind is born in sin.

1st - it is a song of repentance. David is expressing, with strong language, the anguish of his guilt.

Notice the personal pronouns used:

blot out my transgressions
Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity
cleanse me from my sin
For I know my transgressions
my sin is ever before me
Against you, you only, have I sinned

It is obvious that David is accepting full responsibility for his actions. He is not attempting to pass his sin off on a pre-existing condidtion.

Also notice the wording of verse 5

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.

This is not a doctrinal statement of inherited sin. It doesn't even imply that David himself inherited a sin nature.

David is utilizing "hyperbole" - a standard poetic practice of exaggerating a statement. The purpose is to express intense emotions, or to make a strong empression upon the reader, and should not be taken literally.
A common American hybole is "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse".

David again uses this technique in verse 7:

Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

Surely David isn't creating a doctrine of cleansing from sin in this statement.


As for Romans 5:12 -

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned

A careful interpretation of Romans 5:12 depends upon the Greek prepositional phrase eph hos. This phrase is made up of a preposition epi and a relative pronoun hos. The preposition has several different meanings depending upon the immediate context and the case of the noun or pronoun with which it occurs. Since the relative pronoun hos is in the dative case, it should be translated "on the ground of", "by reason of", "on the condition of", "because of". The meaning of the relative pronoun depends upon its antecedent. In the Greek language the relative pronoun agrees with its antecedent in number and gender. Here the relative pronoun is singular in number but it may be either masculine or neuter in gender. In this passage, the Greek noun thanatos (death) is the nearest singular noun, making thanatos its logical antecedent. In this scenario then, the prepositional phrase eph hos would be equivalent to epi thanatos (because of death). In that case, the phrase should be translated "because of which" or "upon which condition." With this meaning given to the prepositional phrase, the whole clause may be translated "because of which all sinned" and interpreted to mean that all men sinned because of the death that has been transmitted to them from Adam. In other words, the transmitted death from Adam provides the grounds or condition upon which all men sin. So, I think a more accurate translation should be, "“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because of which all sinned”

JollyRoger1970
Nov 15th 2008, 11:27 PM
Greetings JollyRoger,

We did not inherit Adam's sin, we inherited his sin nature. All mankind is born in the seed of Adam. As such we are in his loins, and therefore are born in bondage to Satan, sin and death. This was not so before the fall, but is the consquence of sin. Freedom from this bondage can be found only in Christ Jesus. For there is no other name given among men by which we can be saved. That is why Scripture teaches us we must be born again. Born again, not of flesh, but of the Spirit of God. When we are born again, the bondage is broken, we are no longer slaves of Satan, and we have no need to fear death, for Christ has paid the debt our sins deserve, so we now rejoice that we have eternal life in Christ.

Many Blessings,
RW


Hey! Thanks for the comment. It helps to distinguish the difference between the sin of Adam and the sin nature.

JollyRoger1970
Nov 15th 2008, 11:31 PM
Psalm 51:5 is clearly NOT teaching that all of mankind is born in sin.

1st - it is a song of repentance. David is expressing, with strong language, the anguish of his guilt.

Notice the personal pronouns used:

blot out my transgressions
Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity
cleanse me from my sin
For I know my transgressions
my sin is ever before me
Against you, you only, have I sinned

It is obvious that David is accepting full responsibility for his actions. He is not attempting to pass his sin off on a pre-existing condidtion.

Also notice the wording of verse 5

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.

This is not a doctrinal statement of inherited sin. It doesn't even imply that David himself inherited a sin nature.

David is utilizing "hyperbole" - a standard poetic practice of exaggerating a statement. The purpose is to express intense emotions, or to make a strong empression upon the reader, and should not be taken literally.
A common American hybole is "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse".

David again uses this technique in verse 7:

Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

Surely David isn't creating a doctrine of cleansing from sin in this statement.


As for Romans 5:12 -

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned

A careful interpretation of Romans 5:12 depends upon the Greek prepositional phrase eph hos. This phrase is made up of a preposition epi and a relative pronoun hos. The preposition has several different meanings depending upon the immediate context and the case of the noun or pronoun with which it occurs. Since the relative pronoun hos is in the dative case, it should be translated "on the ground of", "by reason of", "on the condition of", "because of". The meaning of the relative pronoun depends upon its antecedent. In the Greek language the relative pronoun agrees with its antecedent in number and gender. Here the relative pronoun is singular in number but it may be either masculine or neuter in gender. In this passage, the Greek noun thanatos (death) is the nearest singular noun, making thanatos its logical antecedent. In this scenario then, the prepositional phrase eph hos would be equivalent to epi thanatos (because of death). In that case, the phrase should be translated "because of which" or "upon which condition." With this meaning given to the prepositional phrase, the whole clause may be translated "because of which all sinned" and interpreted to mean that all men sinned because of the death that has been transmitted to them from Adam. In other words, the transmitted death from Adam provides the grounds or condition upon which all men sin. So, I think a more accurate translation should be, "“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because of which all sinned”

Thank you for the exegesis. That makes a lot of sense to me in refuting the doctrine of original sin. I never understood the doctrine and now am confidant that it is in error.

Yukerboy
Nov 15th 2008, 11:36 PM
Define the doctrine of original sin.

JollyRoger1970
Nov 15th 2008, 11:43 PM
Define the doctrine of original sin.

The doctrine of original sin—the notion that one is born into this world hereditarily totally depraved—is widely believed in the religious world.
For example, the Augsburg Confession of Faith (1530), Lutheranism’s creed, asserted that

”. . . all men, born according to nature, are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without confidence towards God and with concupiscence, and that this original disease or flaw is truly a sin, bringing condemnation and also eternal death to those who are not reborn through baptism and the Holy Spirit” (Article II).

Walstib
Nov 15th 2008, 11:43 PM
So, I think a more accurate translation should be, "“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because of which all sinned”

A more accurate translation than what translation? The KJV for one says...

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (Rom 5:12 KJV)

What is the difference between "because of which" and "for that"? Both relate to death being the subject. It would agree with you but what was your point with this? Sorry I missed it. The way I am seeing it it was a sin that caused this death, so it shows all men dieing and sinning originated with Adam.

Maybe I need a definition of "the doctrine of origional sin..." I thought it was simply that all sin started with Adam and since then Jesus has been the only sinless person. ???

Peace,

Joe

Walstib
Nov 15th 2008, 11:47 PM
Quote JollyRoger--- "The doctrine of original sin—the notion that one is born into this world hereditarily totally depraved—is widely believed in the religious world."

I thought that was the doctrine of total depravity...?

As I see it one can be guilty due to the fallen state of the creation yet still hear God when He calls.... not totaly depraved.

Joe

Yukerboy
Nov 15th 2008, 11:52 PM
one is born into this world hereditarily totally depraved

Oh. This is about that....

"the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men"

That would pretty much sum it up for me. Because Adam sinned, all men are condemned. Why are all men condemned? For the wages of sin is death.

"through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners"

Ditto above. We were made sinners because of the disobedience of one man.

holyrokker
Nov 15th 2008, 11:54 PM
There are a few resources on the web that may help you:

http://aremenbornsinners.com/aremenbornsinners.htm

http://www.greatcontroversy.org/documents/sermons/pri-birt.html

http://www.ntslibrary.com/Online-Library-The-Doctrine-of-Original-Sin.htm

Walstib
Nov 15th 2008, 11:58 PM
There are a few resources on the web that may help you:

Not my bag to go read that stuff really. I thought we were having a discussion and reasoning with each other... I can't ask them why they wrote what they did... Then you might not have been posting them for me, hard to tell

Peace,

Joe

JollyRoger1970
Nov 15th 2008, 11:58 PM
There are a few resources on the web that may help you:

http://aremenbornsinners.com/aremenbornsinners.htm

http://www.greatcontroversy.org/documents/sermons/pri-birt.html

http://www.ntslibrary.com/Online-Library-The-Doctrine-of-Original-Sin.htm

Thanks for the resources! I am heading that way now..... :-)

holyrokker
Nov 16th 2008, 12:09 AM
A more accurate translation than what translation? The KJV for one says...

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (Rom 5:12 KJV)

What is the difference between "because of which" and "for that"? Both relate to death being the subject. It would agree with you but what was your point with this? Sorry I missed it. The way I am seeing it it was a sin that caused this death, so it shows all men dieing and sinning originated with Adam.

Maybe I need a definition of "the doctrine of origional sin..." I thought it was simply that all sin started with Adam and since then Jesus has been the only sinless person. ???

Peace,

Joe

My conclusion is that Romans 5:12 is saying that mankind inherits death, not sin. It is because of death that we all sin.

In John 3, Jesus said "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:5-6)
Here Jesus is telling Nicodemus that a spiritual birth is needed in order to have a right relationship with God, since mankind is born spiritually dead (separated from God). Jesus is not saying that there is an inherent sinfulness to the physical birth; simply that a physical birth is not sufficient. Since God is Spirit, we must be born of the Spirit to have a relationship with Him.

James 1:14 further says, "But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire."

holyrokker
Nov 16th 2008, 12:12 AM
Not my bag to go read that stuff really. I thought we were having a discussion and reasoning with each other... I can't ask them why they wrote what they did... Then you might not have been posting them for me, hard to tell

Peace,

Joe
JollyRoger expressed interest.

I agree with you. Discussion is more interesting, but sometimes it helps to read what others have written.

RogerW
Nov 16th 2008, 12:27 AM
My conclusion is that Romans 5:12 is saying that mankind inherits death, not sin. It is because of death that we all sin.

In John 3, Jesus said "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:5-6)
Here Jesus is telling Nicodemus that a spiritual birth is needed in order to have a right relationship with God, since mankind is born spiritually dead (separated from God). Jesus is not saying that there is an inherent sinfulness to the physical birth; simply that a physical birth is not sufficient. Since God is Spirit, we must be born of the Spirit to have a relationship with Him.

James 1:14 further says, "But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire."

Greetings HolyRokker,

But since every man is born in Adam, every man is born with a sin nature. We do not become sinners when we sin, we sin because we are born with a nature of sin. When we are not in Christ we are children of disobedience and by nature the children of wrath.

Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

And since we are sinners by nature, we see that sin is not just something we do, it is something we are. Thus, Adam and Eve were originally created morally good, but because of their sin moral goodness vanished from the human heart and all of their descendants are thus born with a sinful nature.

Many blessings,
RW

holyrokker
Nov 16th 2008, 12:30 AM
But since every man is born in Adam, But this is a big assumption. Does the Bible teach that we are "born in Adam"?

RogerW
Nov 16th 2008, 12:37 AM
But this is a big assumption. Does the Bible teach that we are "born in Adam"?

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
1Co 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
1Co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Nov 16th 2008, 12:47 AM
All of humanity can be traced back to Adam and Eve. See Gen 5, Gen 10, Mt 1, Lu 3

Ge 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Ge 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Blessings,
RW

holyrokker
Nov 16th 2008, 12:50 AM
Let's look at the full context of those verses:

1 Corinthians 15:42-49
So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

This passage is saying, essentially, what Jesus said to Nicodemus in John 3. We are born as physical beings, just as Adam was a physical being. Spiritual birth comes from Christ.

Walstib
Nov 16th 2008, 01:20 AM
My conclusion is that Romans 5:12 is saying that mankind inherits death, not sin. It is because of death that we all sin.I agree with you here. Still that death started with Adam's origional sin, right?
Here Jesus is telling Nicodemus that a spiritual birth is needed in order to have a right relationship with God, since mankind is born spiritually dead (separated from God). Jesus is not saying that there is an inherent sinfulness to the physical birth; simply that a physical birth is not sufficient. Since God is Spirit, we must be born of the Spirit to have a relationship with Him.Agreed I think. To clarify are you saying the phisical birth itself is not a sinful act or that at birth we are not guilty yet? Something else? I will wait to comment..

Thanks,
Joe

mikebr
Nov 16th 2008, 01:27 AM
[Rom 5:18] Therefore as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

BroRog
Nov 16th 2008, 02:02 AM
Does Psalm 51 teach the doctrine of Original Sin? David announces in verse 5:

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.”

No, David is admitting that he was a sinner from his birth, but unlike the doctrine of Original Sin, he does not attribute this fact to Adam.

Original sin is one of those goofy ideas that only makes sense if you have been up too late and everything your friend says sounds funny. :)

The idea attempts to shift my blame and guilt from me, the sinner, to my father Adam as if my sin was his fault. It makes my sin too much of a genetic artifact and shifts the basis of my sin too far away from my own will. If the idea of Original sin was actually true, then Jesus didn't need to die since we would eventually learn how to genetically engineer sin out of a person.

Not likely. :)

Butch5
Nov 16th 2008, 02:07 AM
Deleted Post...

BroRog
Nov 16th 2008, 02:08 AM
Greetings HolyRokker,

But since every man is born in Adam, every man is born with a sin nature. We do not become sinners when we sin, we sin because we are born with a nature of sin. When we are not in Christ we are children of disobedience and by nature the children of wrath.

Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

And since we are sinners by nature, we see that sin is not just something we do, it is something we are. Thus, Adam and Eve were originally created morally good, but because of their sin moral goodness vanished from the human heart and all of their descendants are thus born with a sinful nature.

Many blessings,
RW

Not only does the doctrine of original sin make sin a matter of nature rather than the will, it also makes Adam responsible for our nature as an outcome of the fall. Paul's affirmation that we are "by nature children of wrath" does not also teach that Adam's fall was the source of our nature.

Butch5
Nov 16th 2008, 02:09 AM
No, David is admitting that he was a sinner from his birth, but unlike the doctrine of Original Sin, he does not attribute this fact to Adam.

Original sin is one of those goofy ideas that only makes sense if you have been up too late and everything your friend says sounds funny. :)

The idea attempts to shift my blame and guilt from me, the sinner, to my father Adam as if my sin was his fault. It makes my sin too much of a genetic artifact and shifts the basis of my sin too far away from my own will. If the idea of Original sin was actually true, then Jesus didn't need to die since we would eventually learn how to genetically engineer sin out of a person.

Not likely. :)

LOL that's funny.

holyrokker
Nov 16th 2008, 02:14 AM
I agree with you here. Still that death started with Adam's origional sin, right?Agreed I think. To clarify are you saying the phisical birth itself is not a sinful act or that at birth we are not guilty yet? I will wait to comment..

Thanks,
Joe
Yes. That's an accurate summary.

holyrokker
Nov 16th 2008, 02:17 AM
No, David is admitting that he was a sinner from his birth, but unlike the doctrine of Original Sin, he does not attribute this fact to Adam.

Original sin is one of those goofy ideas that only makes sense if you have been up too late and everything your friend says sounds funny. :)

The idea attempts to shift my blame and guilt from me, the sinner, to my father Adam as if my sin was his fault. It makes my sin too much of a genetic artifact and shifts the basis of my sin too far away from my own will. If the idea of Original sin was actually true, then Jesus didn't need to die since we would eventually learn how to genetically engineer sin out of a person.

Not likely. :)

Exactly! The doctrine of inherited sin makes mankind victims rather than guilty of incredible offense against God.

Yukerboy
Nov 16th 2008, 02:20 AM
Paul states "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" and "through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners"

I think Paul is being especially clear that our condemnation is the result of Adam's trespass. Also, men were made (forced to become) sinners because of the disobedience of Adam.

If it was Adam's fault or my own, it doesn't matter. I have sinned, I deserve death. I have been given the gift of everlasting life throuogh Jesus Christ.

No one who believes like Paul that man were made to be sinners by Adam's disobedience is trying to use Adam as a scapegoat. We are still held accountable, unless we are forgiven.

JollyRoger1970
Nov 16th 2008, 03:11 AM
[quote=RogerW;1869205]Greetings HolyRokker,

We do not become sinners when we sin, we sin because we are born with a nature of sin. When we are not in Christ we are children of disobedience and by nature the children of wrath.


I John 3:4-8
4Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. 5But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. 6No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him 7Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work.


We become sinners when we break the laws of God.

Walstib
Nov 16th 2008, 01:12 PM
OK, I have a couple questions for everybody.

Context---- A child is conceived. This child's physical body then dies before they have a chance to break the "law" or "do something not from faith" or whatever one wants to define as "their personal sin". Millions (or more) of children die while still in the womb. I do not believe in total depravity.

1-- If they are considered wholly innocent with no "state of sin" or "inherent guilt" would we not then have millions of sinless people?

If yes, therefore---

2-- Would this not mean Jesus is not the only sinless person to have lived and any one of these millions would have been a worthy sacrifice on the cross?

With honesty,

Joe

(I believe every one of these children would be found in heaven)

BroRog
Nov 16th 2008, 03:12 PM
Paul states "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" and "through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners"

I think Paul is being especially clear that our condemnation is the result of Adam's trespass. Also, men were made (forced to become) sinners because of the disobedience of Adam.

If it was Adam's fault or my own, it doesn't matter. I have sinned, I deserve death. I have been given the gift of everlasting life throuogh Jesus Christ.

No one who believes like Paul that man were made to be sinners by Adam's disobedience is trying to use Adam as a scapegoat. We are still held accountable, unless we are forgiven.

Remember, you are reading Paul through the pen of an English translator. :) In Greek this reads differently.

Yukerboy
Nov 16th 2008, 03:44 PM
Context---- A child is conceived. This child's physical body then dies before they have a chance to break the "law" or "do something not from faith" or whatever one wants to define as "their personal sin". Millions (or more) of children die while still in the womb. I do not believe in total depravity.

1-- If they are considered wholly innocent with no "state of sin" or "inherent guilt" would we not then have millions of sinless people?

If yes, therefore---

2-- Would this not mean Jesus is not the only sinless person to have lived and any one of these millions would have been a worthy sacrifice on the cross?

With honesty,

Joe

(I believe every one of these children would be found in heaven)

The answer to the first and second would have to be yes if they were considered sinless, which is why they can not be without sin, though they have done nothing wrong. Just as God chose to love Jacob and hate Esau before either had done anything good or bad. Jacob was made righteous, Esau was not. Had God not made Jacob righteous, then, before he had done anything good or bad, he was sinful.

As for the parenthetical, I have always said that the heathen in the Amazon who never heard the Gospel is condemned though some never thought he had a chance. The same would go for babies, except for one quote by Jesus....

"Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."


In Greek this reads differently.


Transliteration...

dia - because of or for this reason
heis - one
paraptoma - trespass or sin
eis - has brought
katakrima - condemnation
pas - to all.

And...

dia - because of or for this reason
heis - one
anthropos - man's
parako - disobedience
polys - the many
kathistomi - were made, ordained, rendered, or caused to be
hamartolos - devoted to sin, a sinner

Just_Another_Guy
Nov 16th 2008, 05:30 PM
Does Psalm 51 teach the doctrine of Original Sin? David announces in verse 5:

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.”

I think it teaches that the sin nature that brings about death is present within a man due to Adam's original sin. I don't think this means that every sin commited within his lifetime is then attributable to all of his children. Death and sin are inherited based on Adam's disobedience. The world itself is now subject to death and sin. This includes plant and animal life. So because of God's punishment to Adam, all creation is now bound and subject to this imperfection.

Now you do bring up some interesting points regarding God's judgement of sin, and obedience to the commands. What are God's primary commands? To Love Him and to Love one another. Now I see where you are probably going with this..some people might take the whole "Love one another" doctrine to the extreme to where they think everything they do can essentially be justifiable by God's grace and forgiveness through Christ. Scripture tells us that this is clearly not the case. We should go forward within our walk, with the faith and assurance that we are doing the right thing, and use the word as a basis for what we should do.

Friend of I AM
Nov 16th 2008, 05:57 PM
Yes, man is responsible for his own salvation through his obedience to God and His commands. Without obedience to God one is not saved.

Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

I guess I'm more along the lines of thinking that ritualistic obedience being something that became an impossibility after the fall. I think had Adam made the right choice, he wouldn't be bound to disobedience. Unfortunately due to making the wrong choice, Adam was kind of left in a bit of a helpless state and in need of assistance regarding returning to God. Now I don't think that means that there aren't men whom God wouldn't intercede for even with them being in an imperfect state.

I think God may have interceded for Job, Noah, Moses, Enoch and others whom he had deemed very righteous men for their times. These men were far from perfect and weren't sinless, but God is merciful and knew that even with them being in an imperfect state(and sometimes disobedient)..he could use them for his glory and extend his salvation to them.

Diolectic
Nov 16th 2008, 07:49 PM
A Perspective on Psalm 51:5

by William P. Murray, Jr.

Are men born sinners? A commonly abused 'proof' text is Psalm 51:5. Although I cannot claim the following as a result of my own scholarship or research, the information is a culmination from many sources over the years, and, I feel, the best explanation of this particular text that I have come across.

Psalm 51:5 - "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." KJV

This is a Hebrew poetic parallelism, with the second line of the verse saying the same thing as the first line in a slightly different way. The first verb, of which David is the subject, is in the Pulal tense (as is "made" in # Job 15:7 ), which is an idiom used to refer to creation or origins, and is the 'passive' form of Polel ("formed": # Ps 90:2 Pro 26:10 ). TWOT, #623, 1:270.

The subject of this verse is NOT the state or constitution of David's nature as a sinner at, or before, his birth. The subject is, as the verse clearly states, the `circumstances' of his conception- the sexual union which produced him was an act of sin, and addresses the unrighteousness of his mother's act, not anything (such as a sin nature) inherent within
himself. (The NIV's version of this verse is an INTERPRETATION, not a translation: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.")


David had two half-sisters (Zeruiah, Abigail).....:


1CHR 2:13-16 13 “And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, 14 Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh: 16 Whose sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah; Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three. 17 And Abigail bare Amasa: and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmeelite.”


....and the father of David's half-sisters was not Jesse, but Nahash:

2Sam 17:25 “And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab: which Amasa was a man's son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab's mother.”


Nahash, the father of Zeruiah and Abigal, David's half-sisters, was an Ammonite king:

1Sam 11:1 “Then Nahash the Ammonite came up, and encamped against Jabeshgilead: and all the men of Jabesh said unto Nahash, Make a covenant with us, and we will serve thee.”
1Sam 12:12 “And when ye saw that Nahash the king of the children of Ammon came against you, ye said unto me, Nay; but a king shall reign over us: when the LORD your God was your king.”

David's father was Jesse, not Nahash. Zeruiah and Abigal were David's half-sisters through his mother's previous marriage to Nahash. This would also help explain why Nahash showed kindness to David, perhaps out of respect for David's mother, Nahash’s former wife and the mother of two of Nahash's children. 2Sam 10:2 “Then said David, I will shew kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father shewed kindness unto me. And David sent to comfort him by the hand of his servants for his father. And David's servants came into the land of the children of Ammon.”

David's mother was most likely the second wife of Jesse, the first wife being the mother of David's half-brothers. Jesse’s first wife's standing before the 'righteousness of the law', (her not having been married to, or the concubine of, a heathen king, as was David’s mother), would have been superior to that of David's mother, and explains why David's half-brothers, Jesse's other sons, would have felt they were superior to David, and why he would be accused of being prideful, for thinking he was as good as them....

1Sam 17:28-30 28 “And Eliab his eldest brother heard when he spake unto the men; and Eliab's anger was kindled against David, and he said, Why camest thou down hither? and with whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know thy pride, and the naughtiness of thine heart; for thou art come down that thou mightest see the battle. 29 And David said, What have I now done? Is there not a cause? 30 And he turned from
him toward another, and spake after the same manner: and the people answered him again after the former manner.”

...and why David was not considered, by his father Jesse, as `true' a son as his halfbrothers.
Samuel had called Jesse and his sons, and thus expected `all' his sons, to the sacrifice (1Sam 16:5,11). Jesse, having been told to bring `his sons' by a prophet of the Lord everyone feared (1Sam 16:4), was confident he had obeyed the prophet, even knowing he did not bring David....

1Sam 16:11 “And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither.”

....which would be consistent with God's sometimes choosing that which men esteemed as worthless (the `least') to be the greatest: (Gideon- Jud 6:15; King Saul- 1Sam 9:21; Jesus- Mt 2:6, Lk 9:48) David's mother was apparently a Jewish woman, because `no Ammonite shall enter the congregation of the Lord to the 10th generation’ (Deu 23:3), and yet in PS 86:16 and PS 116:16, David refers to himself as "the son of thy handmaid", which would seem to testify to his mother's relationship with the Lord. David's mother was, in the eyes of
Jewish law, considered `defiled' by her previous relationship to an Ammonite. Nu 25:1,2; De 7:3,4; 1ki 11:2-4, Ezr 9:2; Ne 13:23,25; 2Co 6:14-17

This page may be copied and distributed freely as long as it is not altered.

Butch5
Nov 16th 2008, 09:00 PM
OK, I have a couple questions for everybody.

Context---- A child is conceived. This child's physical body then dies before they have a chance to break the "law" or "do something not from faith" or whatever one wants to define as "their personal sin". Millions (or more) of children die while still in the womb. I do not believe in total depravity.

1-- If they are considered wholly innocent with no "state of sin" or "inherent guilt" would we not then have millions of sinless people?

If yes, therefore---

2-- Would this not mean Jesus is not the only sinless person to have lived and any one of these millions would have been a worthy sacrifice on the cross?

With honesty,

Joe

(I believe every one of these children would be found in heaven)

Hi Joe,

That is the major problem with the satisfaction model (which came about around 1100 A.D.) of the atonement. It focuses almost exclusively on Christ's death for sins. The Classic view, which is the view the early church held and I too hold to, says that the atonement accomplished much more than just a payment for sins. The Classic view says that Christ died for our sins, not as a payment to God to appease His wrath, but rather as a ransom to Satan to redeem mankind from the power of darkness. The Classic view says that the resurrection was important, as was the incarnation, Jesus teachings etc. Even is the unborn child is sinless, they could not be saved without Christ, because they were under the power of Satan, they were in the kingdom of darkness. Slaves to sin and to the Satan. The only way that they and everyone else could be saved was to be ransomed form the kingdom of darkness and placed into the kingdom of God.


Colossians 1:12-13 ( KJV ) 12Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

This is a rather simple explanation because to explain the Classic view I would need to explain much more than can be written here.

holyrokker
Nov 16th 2008, 10:51 PM
A Perspective on Psalm 51:5


by William P. Murray, Jr.

This is an excellent perspective! Thank you for posting it here.

Walstib
Nov 16th 2008, 11:11 PM
Thanks for the response,

That is the major problem with the satisfaction model (which came about around 1100 A.D.) of the atonement. It focuses almost exclusively on Christ's death for sins. Well I guess I did bring atonement into this….:P It really is beautiful how interconnected all doctrine is

My view is continually being formed rather than any traditional view but that is just comment.
The Classic view, which is the view the early church held and I too hold to, says that the atonement accomplished much more than just a payment for sins. The Classic view says that Christ died for our sins, not as a payment to God to appease His wrath, but rather as a ransom to Satan to redeem mankind from the power of darkness. The Classic view says that the resurrection was important, as was the incarnation, Jesus teachings etc. I must admit I was considering that my question was flawed because none of these souls would have been the only begotten Son of God. My point behind the question was that Jesus is as I understand, from the evidence I have found, is the only person that can be said to have no sin. Not having no sin imputed or cleansed to perfection but purely and eternaly without sin. A ransom to Satan sounds real strange to me but this thread is not really about propitiation.

I guess in the long run I am just one of those people who sees every word of the bible is true. (not implying you don’t) That and I have a hard time seeing how all does not mean all or everyone does not mean everyone. Romans 3:23 is enough proof for me a baby one instant after conception “has sinned”. Well… two or three witnesses eh? Rom 5:12. Reasoning that out can be quite hard as evidenced by the number of posts on this board and how easily rabbit trails and strawmen appear. This I am guilty of myself.

Well I will stop my rant now and go watch a movie with my wife. It is way to easy to spend too much time here.

Grace and peace,

Joe

JollyRoger1970
Nov 23rd 2008, 01:29 AM
I think it teaches that the sin nature that brings about death is present within a man due to Adam's original sin. I don't think this means that every sin commited within his lifetime is then attributable to all of his children. Death and sin are inherited based on Adam's disobedience. The world itself is now subject to death and sin. This includes plant and animal life. So because of God's punishment to Adam, all creation is now bound and subject to this imperfection.

Now you do bring up some interesting points regarding God's judgement of sin, and obedience to the commands. What are God's primary commands? To Love Him and to Love one another. Now I see where you are probably going with this..some people might take the whole "Love one another" doctrine to the extreme to where they think everything they do can essentially be justifiable by God's grace and forgiveness through Christ. Scripture tells us that this is clearly not the case. We should go forward within our walk, with the faith and assurance that we are doing the right thing, and use the word as a basis for what we should do.

Thanks for the input! :-)

holyrokker
Nov 23rd 2008, 02:05 AM
Death and sin are inherited based on Adam's disobedience.
But how can sin be inherited? There's no conclusive evidence in Scripture that would indicate such a thing.

JollyRoger1970
Nov 29th 2008, 01:24 AM
But how can sin be inherited? There's no conclusive evidence in Scripture that would indicate such a thing.

I believe you are right!

Sirus
Nov 30th 2008, 11:30 PM
Great! Now all you have to do is show us where scripture says Adam was not earthly, natural, and corruptible, and explain away the need for the tree of life to escape the corruption he was created with that if he were to continued to have the tree of life after he sinned he would have lived forever. The image we bear is that earthly natural image that it pleased the Lord to make.

God said it was good, not perfect. Good for working His redemptive plan of salvation in Christ, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world before man was even created. Good that it is sown in corruption and raised in incorruption. A seed must die to yield life. THe same seeds with life in themselves that needed to die to yield in Genesis 1, where people say there was no death, even though the earth was found in a state of death in Genesis 1:2. No death? Either people are not understanding Romans 5:12, or we have some major contradictions that need answered.

holyrokker
Nov 30th 2008, 11:52 PM
Great! Now all you have to do is show us where scripture says Adam was not earthly, natural, and corruptible, and explain away the need for the tree of life to escape the corruption he was created with that if he were to continued to have the tree of life after he sinned he would have lived forever. The image we bear is that earthly natural image that it pleased the Lord to make.

God said it was good, not perfect. Good for working His redemptive plan of salvation in Christ, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world before man was even created. Good that it is sown in corruption and raised in incorruption. A seed must die to yield life. THe same seeds with life in themselves that needed to die to yield in Genesis 1, where people say there was no death, even though the earth was found in a state of death in Genesis 1:2. No death? Either people are not understanding Romans 5:12, or we have some major contradictions that need answered.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your post.

Sirus
Dec 1st 2008, 01:07 AM
The natural came first not the spiritual (1Cor 15). The first natural Adam needed the tree of life in order to not die (Gen 3:22), which means he was earthly, natural, carnal, dying, decaying flesh just as we are (1Cor 15). He had the tree of life, we don't. Adam's sin separated all men from that tree, change man's relationship with God ensuring all would sin, so death passes on all men (Rom 5). When exactly did Adam's nature change? If a nature causes us to sin what caused him to sin? Adam sinned for the same reasons all men sin, lust of the flesh and the eye, and the pride of life. The fruit looked good, looked good to eat, and would make him wise by something he did by a decision he made.

Sirus
Dec 1st 2008, 05:28 AM
Greetings HolyRokker,

But since every man is born in Adam, every man is born with a sin nature. We do not become sinners when we sin, we sin because we are born with a nature of sin. When we are not in Christ we are children of disobedience and by nature the children of wrath.

Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

And since we are sinners by nature, we see that sin is not just something we do, it is something we are. Thus, Adam and Eve were originally created morally good, but because of their sin moral goodness vanished from the human heart and all of their descendants are thus born with a sinful nature.

Many blessings,
RWFirst you say
"every man is born with a sin nature" and "we sin because we are born with a nature of sin"
then use a passage that says we are sinners because we have walked according to the course of this world, a spirit that now works, we had a conversation of sin?
In short, we are sinners because we sin.
Where's the part about being born that way?
Since sin is something we are, that explains why Adam sinned. They had all that moral goodness in their heart!

Sirus
Dec 1st 2008, 05:33 AM
But this is a big assumption. Does the Bible teach that we are "born in Adam"?1Co 15:21-22 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.



I agree with you here. Still that death started with Adam's origional sin, right?Yes, because he was banished from the tree of life, not because he was immortal.

Sirus
Dec 1st 2008, 05:53 AM
My conclusion is that Romans 5:12 is saying that mankind inherits death, not sin. It is because of death that we all sin.

In John 3, Jesus said "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:5-6)
Here Jesus is telling Nicodemus that a spiritual birth is needed in order to have a right relationship with God, since mankind is born spiritually dead (separated from God). Jesus is not saying that there is an inherent sinfulness to the physical birth; simply that a physical birth is not sufficient. Since God is Spirit, we must be born of the Spirit to have a relationship with Him.

James 1:14 further says, "But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire."So does this mean you think Adam was not spiritually dead? I don't even subscribe to spiritual death, but I'm just asking. What constitutes "separated from God"? Is it like when Adam and Eve were tempted and God was no where to be found? Is it like when Cain and Abel talked with God? I can go one down the line with those that knew God. Where is this separation? Is it just some veiled relationship that is not open in the cool of the day in the garden? That's how I see it, and that is not spiritually dead as taught by most.

It is not because of death that we all sin it is because of a change in relationship that we all sin. This is part of how many were designated/ordained to be sinners. Yet, even without the relationship changed in some way Adam sinned. What now? Flesh?

Just_Another_Guy
Dec 1st 2008, 03:42 PM
Great! Now all you have to do is show us where scripture says Adam was not earthly, natural, and corruptible, and explain away the need for the tree of life to escape the corruption he was created with that if he were to continued to have the tree of life after he sinned he would have lived forever. The image we bear is that earthly natural image that it pleased the Lord to make.

God said it was good, not perfect. Good for working His redemptive plan of salvation in Christ, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world before man was even created. Good that it is sown in corruption and raised in incorruption. A seed must die to yield life. THe same seeds with life in themselves that needed to die to yield in Genesis 1, where people say there was no death, even though the earth was found in a state of death in Genesis 1:2. No death? Either people are not understanding Romans 5:12, or we have some major contradictions that need answered.

Man wasn't inherently sown in corruption. He initially had no knowledge of good and evil before eating from the tree of "knowledge." Death was present before the fall. This is made apparent to Adam by God when he tells him that he will surely die after eating from the tree of "knowledge." Adam was the keeper of earth, so the earth was cursed along with him and subjected to death and sin after the fall. So man became sown in corruption after the fall, not before...once he became subjected to death by God's command.